With the possible exception of a few extreme environmentalists, everyone agrees that robust long-run growth is a key to a better society.
An unprecedented jump in growth, for instance, is what enabled the western world to escape poverty, resulting in the famous “hockey stick” of modern prosperity.
Maintaining growth is an ongoing challenge for developed countries, to be sure, and it’s also vitally important to help developing nations grow and prosper.
Which is why policymakers should focus on the policies that generate good outcomes.
Libek, a think tank in Serbia, has released a study on this topic. They start by pointing out that we now have some good measures of economic liberty in various nations.
…the Economic Freedom in the World Index in 1996 by the Fraser Institute…was the first methodological tool that measured intrusion in functioning of the market process by government entities, either directly
through government intervention or indirectly though regulation and market institutions. A similar index, Index of Economic Freedom, produced by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation soon followed… Since this very successful tool was invented, it has been widely employed in empirical studies…, the most important were concerning the role of economic freedom in fostering economic growth. …empirical studies mostly concluded that there is a significant connection between economic freedom and economic growth.
Since I’m always citing the Fraser Index and the Heritage Index, I agree that these are very helpful sources of data.
And lots of academics also use those numbers.
So Libek took a close look at this wealth of empirical research.
Libek conducted a metastudy regarding economic freedom in December 2017, with the aim to reexamine the connection between economic freedom and economic growth in published empirical studies. …Using Google scholar mechanism…92 studies…consider the connection between economic freedom and economic growth. Out of these, a predominant majority of 86 studies (93.5%) finds a positive correlation or connection between them, while only 6 studies (6.5%) have less positive results. …This metastudy shows that empirical studies have predominantly found that economic freedom is associated with higher economic growth rates, while there is only one study claim otherwise and results of other 5 are less conclusive. This high rate of concurrence between economists is highly unusual, given the fact that economist tend to often disagree even among theoretically more accepted topics. Therefore, it is conclusively shown that higher level of economic freedom, ceteris paribus, leads to higher economic growth.
The folks at Libek have a big incentive to care about these issues because Serbia is a reform laggard.
Here’s a chart comparing economic freedom in Serbia with other European regions.
And here is why economic reform is so vitally important for the people of Serbia.
Serbia remains one of the poorest countries in Europe, measured by GDP, with just 5 000 euros per capita. These low growth rates do not provide a possibility for development and closing the gap with more advanced European economies. …A study estimated future economic gains through higher economic freedom (Gwartney and Lawson 2004) reporting that 1-point increase in economic freedom (measured on a 1 to 10 scale) would increase long term rate of economic growth for 1.24% of GDP. Therefore, if Serbia would increase its score from the current 6.75 to 7.75 points – the approximately current level of Austria or Germany, Serbian long-term growth rate would increase from the envisaged 2% in 2017 (and estimated by the IMF to stand at 3.5% in 2018 and 2019) to 5.25% in 2020 and afterwards. This growth rate would enable a fast income convergence with other European countries, with GDP level per capita doubling in 14 years.
Amen. Serbia has the capacity to “converge,” but that won’t happen without economic liberalization.
For non-Serbians, the parts of the Libek report that will be of greatest interest deal with examples of nations that are out-performing their neighbors.
The importance of economic freedom is well shown by the most important case studies from different continents: Chile (South America), Singapore and Korea (East Asia), and Botswana (Africa). In all these prominent cases, economic freedom propelled these societies to a high and sustainable economic growth which led them to prosperity, compared to their neighbors.
The report specifically looks at the long-run data for countries that have sharply diverged from regional competitors.
Let’s start by comparing Chile with the rest of South America. As you can see, Chile’s dramatic economic liberalization led to far higher levels of national prosperity.
Now let’s compare Botswana to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.
I did something similar back in 2015 and also earlier this year, so this remarkable data is impressive but not surprising.
Last but not least, let’s compare Singapore and South Korea to their neighbors.
Once again, we see a compelling link between economic liberty and economic outcomes.
This is dramatically evident when comparing South Korea and North Korea, but you also see remarkable numbers when comparing Singapore with the United States.
The lesson is not that nations need perfect policy (even Hong Kong has some statism). Instead, the message is that governments should strive to increase economic liberty – hopefully in big ways but even small reforms are helpful – so that there’s more “breathing room” for the economy’s productive sector.
[…] Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth? […]
[…] Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth? […]
[…] I’ve spent several decades trying to convince people that we should have free markets and small government in order to increase national prosperity. […]
[…] Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth? […]
[…] Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth? […]
[…] written that there’s a link between national policy and national […]
[…] written that there’s a link between national policy and national […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] created the Anti-Convergence Club so I could have concrete examples of how more economic liberty translates into higher living […]
[…] illustrated by the “anti-convergence club,” there is a very strong relationship between economic liberty and national […]
[…] illustrated by the “anti-convergence club,” there is a very strong relationship between economic liberty and national […]
[…] who oppose entitlement reform necessarily are embracing huge tax increases and perpetual economic stagnation. Not to mention handing more power to […]
[…] who oppose entitlement reform necessarily are embracing huge tax increases and perpetual economic stagnation. Not to mention handing more power to […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth? […]
[…] Do you want improved competitiveness and more economic growth? […]
[…] repeatedly pointed out that there is a relationship between national prosperity and economic liberty. And I’ve shared plenty of data showing that […]
[…] the resulting distribution of income as just, but they also will point out that freer societies do a much better job of generating broadly shared prosperity than government-dominated […]
[…] I can’t help but wonder, though, whether there’s also national discontent because of bad economic policy. […]
[…] the resulting distribution of income as just, but they also will point out that freer societies do a much better job of generating broadly shared prosperity than government-dominated […]
[…] the resulting distribution of income as just, but they also will point out that freer societies do a much better job of generating broadly shared prosperity than government-dominated […]
[…] final sentence in the above excerpt is key. More economic liberty is strongly associated with more national […]
[…] vote will show whether Chileans understand that free markets lead to more upward mobility and higher living standards. If they want less poverty, they should want more capitalism, not a dirigiste […]
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
[…] translates into less economic output, which means lower living […]
[…] Freedom of the World and the Index of Economic Freedom to make the point that more economic liberty is correlated with more human […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] The moral of the story is that you get great results with lots of economic liberty, okay results with some economic liberty, and miserable results with almost no economic liberty (i.e., lots of socialism). […]
[…] moral of the story is that you get great results with lots of economic liberty, okay results with some economic […]
[…] you might expect, regions that are friendlier to capitalismhave enjoyed bigger increases in prosperity and bigger reductions in […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] you don’t need empirical research or theoretical analysis. Just open your eyes and look around the world. The nations based on socialism and so-called positive rights have produced economic misery and […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] all, the evidence is overwhelming that capitalism (oops, I mean free enterprise) does a better job than […]
[…] The main thing to understand is that the world is an economic laboratory and the various countries are experiments showing what works and what doesn’t work. […]
[…] The bottom line is that the poor are better off with economic freedom (i.e., negative liberty). Free markets lead to more upward mobility and higher living standards. […]
[…] The main thing to understand is that the world is an economic laboratory and the various countries are experiments showing what works and what doesn’t work. […]
[…] The main thing to understand is that the world is an economic laboratory and the various countries are experiments showing what works and what doesn’t work. […]
[…] there’s lots of evidence that there’s more prosperity in the United States precisely because the welfare state is […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] I’m more interested in the two points that aren’t mentioned, both of which revolve around the strong link between economic liberty and national […]
[…] more interested in the two points that aren’t mentioned, both of which revolve around the strong link between economic liberty and national […]
[…] she offers another empty – and inaccurate – assertion by writing that it was […]
[…] I also included a chart showing that higher levels of economic liberty are correlated with higher levels of […]
[…] look at another chart from the report. I’ve previously pointed out that there’s a strong relationship between economic freedom and national […]
[…] Chile vs. South America […]
[…] the risk of understatement, this theory isn’t based on empirical […]
[…] the risk of understatement, this theory isn’t based on empirical […]
[…] to say, there’s also a wealth of data showing that this isn’t […]
[…] to say, there’s also a wealth of data showing that this isn’t […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] all, the evidence is overwhelming that capitalism (oops, I mean free enterprise) does a better job than […]
[…] all, the evidence is overwhelming that capitalism (oops, I mean free enterprise) does a better job than […]
[…] all, the evidence is overwhelming that capitalism (oops, I mean free enterprise) does a better job than […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] you might expect, regions that are friendlier to capitalismhave enjoyed bigger increases in prosperity and bigger reductions in […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] Now we are incomprehensibly rich by comparison. At least in market-oriented nations. […]
[…] I’ve spent several decades trying to convince people that we should have free markets and small government in order to increase national prosperity. […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] main point of that column was to show that countries should try to be in the top-left section, where there is less redistribution and less government […]
[…] I’ve spent several decades trying to convince people that we should have free markets and small government in order to increase national prosperity. […]
[…] I’ve spent several decades trying to convince people that we should have free markets and small government in order to increase national prosperity. […]
[…] you might expect, regions that are friendlier to capitalism have enjoyed bigger increases in prosperity and bigger reductions in […]
[…] you might expect, regions that are friendlier to capitalismhave enjoyed bigger increases in prosperity and bigger reductions in […]
[…] you might expect, regions that are friendlier to capitalism have enjoyed bigger increases in prosperity and bigger reductions in […]
[…] But if the term is simply shorthand for a broader agenda of encouraging more saving and investment with an agenda of small government and free markets, then trickle-down economics has a great track record. […]
[…] But if the term is simply shorthand for a broader agenda of encouraging more saving and investment with an agenda of small government and free markets, then trickle-down economics has a great track record. […]
[…] But if the term is simply shorthand for a broader agenda of encouraging more saving and investment with an agenda of small government and free markets, then trickle-down economics has a great track record. […]
[…] More economic freedom means more national prosperity. I’ve repeatedly made this point, but some people never seem to learn. Nonetheless, I’ll share this graph in hopes that data […]
[…] More economic freedom means more national prosperity. I’ve repeatedly made this point, but some people never seem to learn. Nonetheless, I’ll share this graph in hopes that data […]
[…] GDP data when comparing long-run performance for various nations in order to demonstrates that you get more economic output with free markets and limited […]
[…] I’m a voracious consumer of publications that rank economic liberty and national competitiveness. Simply stated, these apples-to-apples rankings tell us which countries have policies that are friendly to growth (and thus the places that will enjoy rising living standards). […]
[…] because of the relationship between policy and prosperity, this means that Americans tend to have much higher living standards than their counterparts in […]
[…] one thing that isn’t blurry is the evidence on what works. Simply stated, there is less prosperity in nations with big government compared to nations with […]
[…] I’ve previously noted, statist policies are never a good idea, but they’re especially foolish when adopted by local or state […]
[…] government in the 1980s. Yet another reminder that the world is a laboratory and every experiment tells us the same thing: Statism produces bad results and markets deliver good […]
[…] moral reasons (government coercion is bad) and utilitarian reasons (nations with small government enjoy much higher levels of prosperity than countries with bigger […]
[…] part of my recent presentation to IES Europe, here’s what I said (and what I’ve said many times before) about the relationship between economic policy and national […]
[…] hope that economic liberty doesn’t shrink in the future. Assuming, of course, we care about national prosperity and poverty […]
[…] P.S. Trade balances also can be affected by other factors, such as shifts in monetary policy and the economic performance of major trading partners. […]
[…] logical conclusion, of course, is that the existence of price controls helps to explain why these countries have lower levels of economic […]
[…] If they choose the latter, there will be less long-run prosperity. […]
[…] If they choose the latter, there will be less long-run prosperity. […]
[…] America is very prosperous because we haven’t followed Bernie’s recipe for bigger […]
[…] The bottom line is that people on both sides of the political debate should ignore the trade deficit and instead focus on the tried-and-true recipe for generating prosperity. […]
[…] First, socialism and central planning are a recipe for economic stagnation. […]
[…] The bottom line is that we need to climb the scale (i.e., have more overall economic liberty) if we want more prosperity. […]
[…] let’s shift to some very important graphs about the relationship between economic freedom and national […]
[…] More national prosperity. […]
[…] have to re-crunch the numbers showing the post-WWII era. I imagine that data also will show a very strong relationship between national prosperity and economic […]
[…] Hong Kong will emerge unscathed, in part because I don’t want to lose a very good example of the link between economic liberty and national […]
[…] I’ve added the historical rankings from Economic Freedom of the World. As you can see (and just as theory and evidence teaches us), the other nations on the chart enjoyed more growth because they had more economic […]
[…] But does the data from Australia show that better policy leads to better results? Definitely. […]
[…] real lesson is not that socialism is bad (that should be obvious), but rather that there’s a strong relationship between national prosperity and economic […]
[…] free enterprise, it’s quite common that they will admit (at least once I share some of the evidence) that markets produce more prosperity than […]
[…] warning about terrible economic consequences is accurate (https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2018/08/15/the-link-between-economic-liberty-and-national-pros…), but I’m not sure that […]
[…] we shouldn’t doubt that the country is paying a considerable price for having too much […]
[…] warning about terrible economic consequences is accurate, but I’m not sure that […]
[…] prosperity is the same all over the world. The challenge is getting politicians to do what’s best for citizens rather than what’s best for […]
[…] to redistribution and/or do they understand (at least implicitly) that a tax-and-redistribute model is a recipe for national economic […]
[…] capitalism is the only system to produce mass prosperity, I actually support free enterprise more because it is a moral system based on voluntary exchange. […]
[…] stated, people enjoy much higher living standards in nations with free markets and small government. Conversely, people living under statist regimes suffer from poverty and […]
[…] link between good policy and convergence explains why Hong Kong and Singapore, for instance, have caught […]
[…] bottom line is that there’s a very meaningful link between economic liberty and national […]
[…] bottom line is that there’s a very meaningful link between economic liberty and national […]
[…] of prosperity are the real drivers of improved health outcomes. Market-driven prosperity is what generates the wealth needed to improve public health, whether the actual delivery takes place via public or private […]
[…] stated, people enjoy much higher living standards in nations with free markets and small government. Conversely, people living under statist regimes suffer from poverty and […]
[…] stated, people enjoy much higher living standards in nations with free markets and small government. Conversely, people living under statist regimes suffer from poverty and […]
[…] that a “lower-tax, free-market economy” generates greater wealth. Interesting (and accurate) […]
[…] again, many caveats apply. Most important, many other policies play a role in determining national prosperity. It’s also worth noting that a handful of tariffs on […]
[…] apparent and the statistical tests provide a good amount of confidence about the strength of the relationship between more economic freedom and more economic […]
[…] apparent and the statistical tests provide a good amount of confidence about the strength of the relationship between more economic freedom and more economic […]
[…] fully agree with the last sentence of that excerpt and I hope the first sentence is […]